Orbit Group Limited (202222184)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202222184 & 202313184

Orbit Group Limited

31 January 2025

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example, whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of:
1. Noise and antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. ASB affecting other residents.
3. Pets causing a nuisance in communal areas.
4. Poor staff conduct.
This report has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42.i. of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about how the landlord responded to the resident’s report of a ASB affecting other residents is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
Following a residents’ meeting on 21 September 2022, the landlord agreed to deal with concerns raised during the discussion as a stage 1 group complaint. It sent the group response on 24 November 2022. However, all subsequent complaints and escalation requests were made by the resident as an individual. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that other residents had given her their authority for her to make any complaints on their behalf.
In her subsequent complaints, the resident continued to cite incidents that had affected other residents and raised concerns about how the landlord had dealt with those reports. In its stage 1 response dated 4 September 2023, the landlord stated that, “as the majority of the ASB reports were made by a group or other residents, it was unable to disclose the full actions it took in response”.
The resident subsequently contacted this Service because she was unhappy with the landlord’s response. While the serious nature of the resident’s concern is acknowledged, paragraph 42.i. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that “the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters raised by a complainant on behalf of another without their authority”.
We have received no evidence confirming that other residents have given their authority for the resident to refer their complaints and concerns to this Service on their behalf. We will therefore only consider the landlord’s actions that relate to matters that directly affected the resident as an individual. Any mention of ASB affecting other residents sonly done so to provide context.

Background and summary of events

At the time she raised her complaint, the resident lived in a 2 bedroom, end of terrace bungalow. She was an assured tenant of the landlord and moved to the property in December 2021 through a mutual exchange. The resident has autism and mental health issues, of which the landlord was aware. The resident was assisted through the complaints process by a representative. For the purposes of the report, both the resident and her representative will be referred to as “the resident”.
On 15 July 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to report that she was being disturbed by loud music and dogs barking in her neighbour’s property. She stated she was autistic and that the noise was triggering her, making her “angry, agitated” and “depressed”. She added that her neighbour’s dogs had been fouling on the communal grass area. She asked who she needed to contact about moving to another property. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s report on 29 July 2022. On 8 August 2022 it wrote to her with an update. It stated that it had made enquiries with Environmental Health (EH), who confirmed it would be installing sound recording equipment in her property. It added that it was waiting for the outcome of EH’s investigation and its legal officer was reviewing all evidence from other residents.
Between 12 August and 14 September 2022, the resident continued to report loud music and barking dogs from her neighbour’s property. She said her neighbour had started banging on the walls late at night and had threatened other residents. She felt intimidated and said she could not live with “all the noise” and wanted help to move. She sent the landlord recordings she had made. On 9 September 2022, the resident stated that she had still not heard from anyone from housing and that she had been trying to get help for 2 months. The landlord wrote to her on 15 September 2022. It said that:
1. the results from EH’s sound recordings taken between 8 and 18 August 2022 were “not conclusive”.
2. an incident of noise disturbance she reported, which had resulted in a police attendance, had “already been addressed” with her neighbour.
3. it had passed her recordings to its legal officer to review and was “exploring the proportionate legal actions available” to it.
4. she should make a housing application to the council or explore a mutual exchange.
5. it could not offer her a management move as this would only granted in “exceptional circumstances”.
6. it signposted her to its tenant support service website for mental health support.
On 21 September 2022, the landlord attended a meeting with several residents to discuss their ASB reports. At the end of the meeting, it agreed it would investigate how it had handled their reports. It would also investigate concerns that a staff member had shared their data with third parties (Complaint A). EH reinstalled noise recording equipment into the resident’s property between 14 and 30 September 2022.
The resident continued to report noise nuisance from her neighbour between 5 October and 2 November 2022. On 7 November 2022, she raised a complaint. She stated that:
1. she shared a wall with her neighbour who banged “repeatedly and at length” on it. As a result, she was “rarely” able to use her living room.
2. she had asked “some time ago” to be placed on the list to move but, because of the noise, had been unable to find anyone to exchange with.
3. according to EH, there had been “no complaints of noise”, except for a few days. It had therefore “knowingly” passed on “false information”. She listed 21 instances where she had reported noise nuisance.
4. the landlord had failed to respond to her reports of noise in a timely manner.
5. it had not followed its complaints procedure.
On 11 November 2022, the resident raised a further complaint. In this she stated that:
1. she and other residents had submitted “numerous complaints” about her neighbour’s dogs that were “allowed to roam free” around the estate to foul on communal land.
2. the landlord had failed to apply its pets and tenancy policies, which had caused her “nuisance, alarm and distress”.
3. the landlord had failed to act in accordance with the neighbour’s tenancy management plan despite having received evidence that she allowed her dogs out unleashed.
On 22 November 2022 the landlord sent the resident’s neighbour a warning letter in response to reports about her dogs. The landlord issued a stage 1 response to Complaint A on 24 November 2022. It stated that:
1. it had “read in detail” the ASB reports made by residents and reviewed the actions it had taken.
2. it could not “divulge” what actions it had taken against individual residents. However, it confirmed that, in line with its ASB policy, it had investigated each reported incident and taken appropriate action where necessary.
3. due to the nature and sensitivity of matters, it was difficult for it to evidence its actions and appreciated any frustration this caused.
4. as part of its investigation, it had been granted access to the member of staff’s email account. It had not seen any evidence they had shared residents’ information.
5. there were instances when they had to discuss “allegations made against perpetrators”. While the staff member had not given any details of who had made the complaints, it may have become evident to the perpetrator “based on the information provided”.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 9 December 2022 to chase responses to the complaints she made on 7 and 11 November 2022. On 24 December 2022, she told the landlord she wanted to escalate Complaint A as an individual resident. She stated that the landlord had:
1. “falsely” represented the “number and nature” of the ASB reports made by residents.
2. not recorded, logged or dealt with many of the reports that residents had submitted.
3. failed to properly deal with breaches of tenancy.
4. not sent “a single outcome letter or email” in response to the complaints she had made.
On 17 February 2023, the resident moved permanently to a different property via a mutual exchange. The landlord issued its stage 2 response to Complaint A on 9 June 2023. This stated that:
1. the nature of the case and data protection requirements had “prevented full disclosure” of the actions it had taken. This had given the impression it had not taken the ASB reports seriously. However, the actions it had taken were “appropriate and proportionate”.
2. it dealt with noise nuisance under its ASB policy where it was deemed it to be a “statutory nuisance”. The “absence of sufficient evidence” of statutory noise nuisance had prevented it from taking further action.
3. it had raised the issue of dogs fouling on communal areas with her neighbour and had checked this during regular estate inspections.
4. it could have been clearer with its communications about:
  1. the condition of the tenancy that residents with dogs cleared up dog foul “without delay”.
  2. the actions open to both it and the “wider community” in response to tenancy breaches relating to dog fouling.
  3. the “level of evidence” it required in order for it to pursue tenancy breaches.
  4. the “type and format of evidence” that residents would be expected to provide.
5. it had not seen any evidence that its staff member had shared any personal information in the course of any discussions.
6. it had not been clear whether it was handling the case under its complaints or ASB policy. It had therefore shared the findings of its complaint investigation with relevant departments to ensure case handlers were clear about which route they were following.
7. it had made a recommendation that, in ASB cases, “clear direction and expectations” were set with residents in terms of what could be “accepted as evidence”.
8. it wanted to offer £150 compensation for its poor handling of her escalation request and delayed response.
The resident approached the Ombudsman on 3 August 2023. She stated that she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and that it had failed to respond to the complaints she had raised. She gave details of the issues she felt remained outstanding. The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 25 August 2023 to ask it to provide the resident with a stage 1 response to the following concerns (Complaint B):
1. how the landlord communicated with her regarding complaints made against a particular neighbour.
2. the complaint she made in November 2022 about the landlord’s handling of reports of dog fouling and dogs not being kept on leads.
3. the complaint she made about the landlord’s handling of ASB.
4. reports of disability discrimination and harassment against her.
5. complaints about the landlord’s application of other policies.
6. reports of a neighbour banging on a shared internal wall.
7. reports of verbal assault, threats, shouting, swearing and drumming.
8. that the landlord had not investigated noise reports in line with Community Trigger legislation.
9. that the landlord had refused to investigate reports of ASB her identity could be disclosed to the alleged perpetrator.
The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 response to Complaint B on 4 September 2023. It stated that:
1. it had already addressed most of the concerns listed in Complaint B in its response to Complaint A. It had therefore only responded to the following points:
  1. reports of verbal assault, threats, disability discrimination and harassment against residents
  2. that the landlord had refused to investigate reports of ASB unless the resident’s identity could be disclosed to the alleged perpetrator.
2. as the majority of the ASB reports were made by a group or other residents, it was unable to disclose the full actions it took in response.
3. allegations of verbal abuse, disability discrimination and ASB were logged and investigated by its tenancy services team manager alongside reports of dog fouling in communal areas. The actions it took included “multi-agency engagement where appropriate”, such as liaison with the police and council.
4. due to the number of complaints it had received about dog fouling, persistent noise disturbance and verbal threats, it had not prioritised “certain aspects” in its response to residents. It apologised for the distress this had caused.
5. it had made relevant staff aware its communication was poor in this case so as to help improve its processes in the future.
6. it had been unable to find any evidence that it had “refused” to investigate her ASB reports unless she disclosed her identity. It apologised for any confusion caused around this.
7. it wanted to offer £85 compensation in recognition of its delayed response following instruction from the Ombudsman.
The resident wrote to the Ombudsman on 26 September 2023 to say she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to Complaint B. She stated that her complaint was “made up of numerous complaints” she had made to the landlord, “of which only one received any response”. Following receipt of the resident’s escalation request, the landlord issued its stage 2 response to Complaint B on 1 December 2023. It stated that:
1. several residents had been impacted by her neighbour’s actions and it had investigated all the reports with support from external agencies, including the police and environmental health.
2. it found “no indication or suggestion” that her neighbour’s behaviour was “directly discriminating” towards her or her personal circumstances.
3. its communication with her could have been better and it apologised for the impact its poor communication had on her.
4. it gave the reporting resident the option to remain anonymous when making ASB reports and took all steps to protect their anonymity. It apologised it had not made this clear at the time and for the concern this would have caused.
5. it acknowledged it had taken “too long” to issue its stage 2 response and wanted to offer £200 compensation for its poor complaint handling.
6. it also acknowledged its poor communication while investigating her ASB reports and offered a further £200 in recognition of this.
The resident approached the Ombudsman on 4 December 2023 to say she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. She said that it had failed to properly deal with many of the ASB reports or to discuss any reasonable adjustments for her, including those around communication.

Assessment and findings

Policies, procedures and legal obligations

The tenancy agreement states that the landlord “will not tolerate” ASB. It defines ASB as “any behaviour which causes or is likely to cause nuisance” and lists one example as noise, such as loud music and shouting which can be heard outside the property. It also states that residents may not keep any pets in the property without receiving written consent. Any pets kept at the property must at all times be kept under control so that they do not cause a nuisance or annoyance to other residents. Consent for keeping pets may be withdrawn if they cause a nuisance.
The landlord’s ASB policy states that all cases will be managed using a number of principles. These include:
1. Managing cases within reasonable timescales.
2. Proactive contact with all parties to ensure they are kept up to date.
3. A multi-agency approach where applicable.
4. Continually risk assess to identify priorities.
The same policy states that, in all circumstances, regard should be given to “reasonableness, proportionality, equity, equality, diversity, and inclusion”. Throughout the case a case manager will consider any reasonable adjustments that can be made to assist in resolution. Where non-legal action is considered as the proportionate next step, the case manager may consider a number of actions. These include verbal or written warnings, a tenancy management plan, good neighbour contract, mediation and joint action with the local authority or police.
The landlord has an Additional Assistance and Reasonable Adjustment policy. It states that it wants to make sure any residents who are vulnerable, have a disability, or require additional assistance for any other reason can access its services. Examples of reasonable adjustments include offering alternative communication and ways to access its services.
The landlord’s animal ownership policy states that it encourages responsible pet ownership; balancing the positive impact pets can have, while ensuring they do not negatively affect others or cause a nuisance”. It lists a number of owner responsibilities. These include:
1. the number of pets residents can keep may be limited to ensure that there are no issues of overcrowding with potential implications for the health of the animals, people or the upkeep and condition of the property.
2. dogs should not be kept outside for long periods and must be kept on a lead at all times in communal areas.
3. residents are responsible for cleaning up after their pets in any gardens, pathways and/or communal areas.

It states that failure to meet these expectations “may be a breach” of the tenancy agreement.

The landlord’s compensation guidance says that it will make payments of up to £400 in recognition of distress, inconvenience and time taken as a result of a failure in service. The amount will depend on the level of impact and effort the resident has made to pursue their complaint. Furthermore, it pays compensation of up to £150 in recognition of poor complaint handling.

Scope of investigation

The resident raised concerns that the landlord discriminated against her. Section 114(1) of the Equality Act 2010 states that a county court has jurisdiction to decide if there has been discrimination or other prohibited conduct. Such determinations fall outside of the Ombudsman’s remit.. However, we can consider whether the landlord treated the resident fairly and responded to her complaint appropriately.
The resident raised concerns to this Service about a data breach by a staff member. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is an independent body that has the power to investigate data breaches, to assess whether an organisation has failed to comply with the relevant data handling provisions. If the resident remains unhappy with how the landlord responded to her complaint about a data breach, and the actions that it took in response, she should refer the matter to the ICO accordingly. While we cannot determine whether a data breach had taken place, we have considered how the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint about staff conduct and whether its response was fair and proportionate.
Following conclusion of the landlord’s complaints process, the resident raised concerns to this Service about how the landlord had handled her subject access request. As this issue did not form part of the formal complaint to the landlord under consideration, this is not something that this Service can consider at this stage. This is because the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to these reports. The resident will need to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint to get this matter resolved. If she remains dissatisfied, she may then approach the ICO who would be best placed to investigate her complaint regarding her data request.
The resident has reported that her mental health was negatively impacted by the noise disturbance she had experienced. This Service acknowledges the resident’s comments regarding her health. However, we are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process. They are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer (if it has one) as a personal injury claim. While we cannot consider injury to health, we have considered whether the resident was caused distress or inconvenience as a result of any failings by the landlord.

Noise and ASB

When considering complaints relating to noise and ASB, it is not the role of the Service to reach a decision on whether they have occurred. The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord has taken reasonable and appropriate steps to respond to the resident’s reports. This report will focus on whether the landlord acted in line with its policies and procedures, and if it took proportionate action and followed good practice.
The resident’s correspondence to the landlord suggests there was some confusion on her part about the difference between how it handled ASB reports and formal complaints, and the difference between the 2 processes. The evidence shows there was an expectation from the resident that the landlord would treat each report of noise nuisance as a separate complaint. The resident felt the landlord should have provided an individual response for each of those as it would a formal complaint.
There is nothing to indicate that the landlord sought to manage the resident’s expectations in this regard. It would have been reasonable for it to have given her a clear explanation of the difference between making a report of ASB and a formal complaint. It should have also clarified which process it was following when responding to her ASB reports. This would have helped the resident to understand how her reports were going to be dealt with. The landlord’s poor communication with regard to its processes and procedures was a failing. However, it did appropriately acknowledge this confusion in its stage 2 response to Complaint A and gave details of the learning it would take from the complaint. This was appropriate.
The resident first reported noise nuisance from her neighbour’s property on 15 July 2022. The evidence shows she had already been in touch with the council about installing noise recording equipment into her property. The landlord told the resident it had liaised with EH to request the results of the recordings, and to gather evidence for its investigation of her ASB reports. This was appropriate and demonstrates it was taking a multi-agency approach in line with its ASB policy.
The landlord has provided correspondence it had received from EH dated 10 November 2022. This shows that the local council had installed noise monitoring equipment on 2 occasions. The first was between 8 and 18 August 2022 and the second between 14 and 30 September 2022. It also stated it had received 900 recordings from the resident that it was in the process of listening to.
The evidence shows the noise was not deemed to have met the threshold for “statutory nuisance”. However, there is no evidence the landlord had listened to the recordings itself. It would have been reasonable in the circumstances for it to have reviewed the recorded evidence rather than relying solely on EH. This would have allowed it to make its own judgement on the nature and severity of the noise nuisance the resident was reporting, and helped inform its decision making. It is acknowledged that EH is the authority that can issue a noise abatement order if a statutory noise nuisance is found to exist. However, by listening to the noise recordings, the landlord could have gained some insight into the issues the resident was reporting and considered whether any measures to counter noise transference could help
On 8 August 2022 the landlord told the resident that its legal officer was reviewing the evidence it had been given. In a subsequent update, on 15 September 2022, it told her it was “exploring the proportionate legal actions available” to it. It also explained that it was “ultimately the civil court judge” that would make “a final decision on any actions to be served”. It was appropriate that the landlord had tried to manage the resident’s expectations about what it was able to do. However, it is unclear from the evidence what legal advice the landlord had obtained following the review, or whether it had intended to take any action following any legal advice it may have received. This should reasonably have been documented to ensure appropriate management of the case going forward.
The records give no indication that the landlord gave any further updates to the resident in respect of this. It is acknowledged that it would not have been able to disclose specific legal advice or any confidential information. However, it could have let her know whether its legal officer had completed their review and whether it had taken any action as a result. The lack of information would likely have added to her uncertainty and doubts about whether the landlord was taking effective measures to resolve matters.
The landlord ASB policy lists as one of its principles, proactive contact with all parties to ensure they are kept up to date. On most occasions, the updates the landlord sent were in response to the resident prompting it for information. The only record of updates provided by the landlord that were not prompted by the resident were on 8 August 2022 and 4 October 2022. Its failure to keep the resident proactively updated was a departure from its policy.
The landlord’s ASB policy states it will carry out a risk assessment and agree an action plan with the resident following an ASB report. The landlord has not provided any evidence it had agreed an action plan. A comprehensive and meaningful action plan would have been an opportunity to agree dates and times when the landlord could send regular updates to the resident. It would also have been an opportunity for the landlord to manage expectations in terms of what it was able to do and to set realistic objectives. Such a plan could have set a formal contact arrangement and, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, helped form a better relationship between the resident and the landlord.
An action plan could also have been reviewed regularly, to ensure actions were taken and to set new ones, as necessity arose. They can also be a way of discussing any reasonable adjustments it could make and to assign a single point of contact for the resident to approach for updates or seek clarification on the actions it was taking. The lack of a clear plan was a missed opportunity for the landlord to maintain regular contact and offer reassurance it was progressing her case and taking the matter seriously. That the resident was left to repeatedly chase the landlord for updates would likely have caused her avoidable distress and inconvenience.
It is noted that the resident had informed the landlord of her preferred method of communication at an early stage. It told it that, due to her vulnerabilities, she only wanted to communicate via email. There is no evidence it had deviated from this. This demonstrates that it had appropriately considered and responded to her request for a reasonable adjustment.
There is no evidence the landlord carried out any kind of risk assessment after receiving the resident’s reports. It is noted that she had told it several times about how the noise was affecting her. Given she had reminded it of her vulnerabilities at the outset and emphasised her sensitivity to noise, it would have been appropriate for it to have completed a risk assessment. This would have helped it identify any appropriate support and the possible risks of the reported ASB. That it could not demonstrate it had carried out a risk assessment was a failing and a departure from its ASB policy.[MM1]
Furthermore, there is no record to show it had referred the resident to Victim Support or advised her that she had the option to request a Community Trigger. It would have been appropriate for it to have provided her with this information when signposting her to the support that was available. However, it is noted that the landlord signposted her on 15 September 2022 to its tenant support service website to access its mental health service. This was appropriate. The evidence shows she was also receiving support from her community mental health team.
Although the landlord was able to offer diary sheets to the resident to create a log of her ASB reports, the evidence shows she was making reports to it on a regular basis. This was through her preferred method of email communication. In light of the circumstances, the way the landlord chose to receive reports was reasonable.
The resident told the landlord that she wanted to move to another property due to the impact the noise nuisance was having on her. The landlord gave her advice on how she could seek alternative accommodation either through the council or via mutual exchange. It told her she would not be able to apply for a management move as this was given only in exceptional circumstances.
The landlord’s management move policy states that a managed move may be considered where a resident is believed to be at real and proven risk of harm or violence. This would have to be supported by its community safety team and partner agencies involved in managing that situation, such as the local council or police. There is no evidence the resident had met this threshold. Given the nature of the resident’s reports, the landlord’s advice that she did not meet the criteria was therefore reasonable. Nonetheless, the resident attained a mutual exchange in February 2023.
The landlord took steps to establish if the ASB the resident was reporting was a wider issue. It consulted with other residents and held a residents’ meeting, which formed the basis of its investigation of Complaint A. The landlord stated in its complaint responses that it had taken appropriate action in response to the resident’s reports. However, it stated that it was unable to provide details of its actions due to issues of confidentiality. It is acknowledged that this can be frustrating to residents who have been subject to noise nuisance and ASB for long periods of time. They will understandably want to know that the landlord was taking appropriate measures to address their concerns.
However, landlords have an obligation to handle third party information in line with data protection legislation. The landlord therefore acted reasonably when it explained it could not disclose specific information about the actions it had taken in respect of her neighbour. The landlord has provided us with evidence that satisfies us it had taken fair and proportionate action to address the ASB. It has also demonstrated that it had sought to achieve a timely resolution and reasonably considered the needs of all parties involved.
In terms of how it dealt with the reports of noise nuisance as an ASB case, there were instances it had departed from its ASB policy. However, it took steps in partnership with EH to establish whether there was evidence of statutory noise nuisance.
It is noted that the resident had generally reported noise transference from the property concerned. It would not be appropriate for the landlord to treat noise transference issues in the same manner as potential statutory noise nuisance. This is because the sound, although the cause of the nuisance, will not normally cross the threshold for statutory noise nuisance in terms of loudness. Instead, in cases like this, the landlord should reasonably consider what, if anything, can be done to reduce the noise transference.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Noise Complaints, published in October 2022 recommends that, to handle noise reports that do not meet the statutory threshold, landlords should adopt a proactive good neighbourhood management strategy. This should be distinct to the ASB policy, with clear options for maintaining good neighbourhood relationships. It states that, this requires some landlords to recognise that noise transference is often the key issue and address the implications of this. By doing so, landlords could stop escalating complaints into ASB and focus more on prevention.
The resident was clear that her vulnerabilities meant she had a particular sensitivity to noise. It would have therefore been reasonable for the landlord to explore this further and if there were ways it could limit the noise transference that the resident was experiencing. The Ombudsman accepts that landlords are not responsible for soundproofing homes above the standards applicable at the time of building. However, our spotlight report recommends that actions taken to prevent and/or mitigate for the typical sources of noise nuisance will, in the long run, be more cost-efficient than handling the subsequent noise nuisance report.
There is no evidence the landlord considered how noise transference could be minimised. Although the noise may not have been caused deliberately, this does not lessen the impact it would have had on the resident. The landlord could have considered whether an inspection would be appropriate, or looked at whether there were any adjustments it could make that were more cost effective and less disruptive than installing soundproofing.
The landlord could have given the resident a more detailed explanation of what soundproofing a property would entail against the benefits of considering other options, such as a move. This would have helped her make an informed decision on the options available. The landlord could also have explored whether any funding was available for her to make her own alterations.
The Ombudsman recognises the landlord’s assessment may have concluded that no effective options were available. We accept the outcome may not have changed. However, it would have been reasonable, given the resident’s vulnerabilities, to have assessed ways it could minimise the impact of the noise transference on the resident.
The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are: Be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The Service applies these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration identified
In its stage 2 response to Complaint B, the landlord acknowledged and apologised for its poor communication. It offered £400 compensation, of which £200 was in recognition of its lack of communication and the impact this had on her. It also gave details in its stage 1 complaint of the learning it had taken from the complaint and how it would use this to improve its services.
However, it could not demonstrate that it had carried out a risk assessment or considered agreeing an action plan with the resident. Furthermore, when investigating the resident’s reports, the landlord should reasonably have put greater emphasis on her sensitivity to the noise, even if it was not deemed a “statutory nuisance”.
That the landlord failed to properly follow its ASB policy or sufficiently take the issue of noise transference into account amounts to maladministration. The Ombudsman will make an order for the landlord to pay additional redress to the resident in line with our Remedies Guidance.

Pets causing a nuisance in communal areas

The landlord’s records show that the resident first reported that her neighbour’s dogs were fouling the communal areas on 15 July 2022. She reported that they were “going to the toilet in the mornings” at the front of her house. On 21 July 2022, she told the landlord that her neighbour had 4 dogs, 4 cats, 2 rabbits and 2 guinea pigs. She raised a complaint about the neighbour’s dogs on 11 November 2022 and made multiple reports throughout November 2022 of dogs fouling the communal green areas and being left outside without leashes. She had also sent the landlord photographic evidence. She stated that it was “intimidating” and that she felt “scared” to leave her property.
There is evidence that the landlord had sent the neighbour a letter about the dog fouling on 17 January 2022 and inspected their property on 26 January 2022. The landlord has not provided a copy of its letter and the outcome of its inspection is unclear. However, the records show that it sent the neighbour a tenancy breach warning letter on 24 January 2022 for not keeping the pets under control. There is evidence from an internal note dated 6 April 2022 that the neighbour was cleaning up after her dogs. This suggests that the landlord’s actions had been successful up to a point.
However, records indicate the landlord sent a further letter to the neighbour on 17 May 2022 regarding the number of pets she had and the dog fouling. It also visited the property on 27 May 2022. The resident’s reports in July and November 2022 show that the landlord’s actions had not resolved the ongoing issue. Although the landlord sent her neighbour a further warning letter on 22 November 2022, the resident continued to report dog fouling until she moved out of her property on 17 February 2023.
The evidence shows the landlord took some steps to compel the neighbour to adhere to her tenancy agreement and the animal ownership policy. However, it was clear the neighbour continued to allow her pets to cause nuisance, despite numerous attempts by the landlord to remind her of her obligations. Following reports of continued breaches of its policy and her tenancy, the landlord could have considered more robust enforcement action that was available to it, such as withdrawal of permission to own pets. The reasons that it did not do so are unclear. If there were exceptional circumstances which prevented the landlord from doing so, this should reasonably have been documented.
Once it was clear its warning letters had failed to resolve the issue, there is no evidence the landlord had taken any further steps in respect of the neighbour’s pets. It could have consulted with its legal team to explore what other enforcement action it could take. There is no indication it did so. While it took steps to address the matter, the landlord has not demonstrated that it had followed an incremental approach. Instead, the evidence shows it had continued to take the same measures despite them not bearing any positive results. This meant the resident was left to experience the impacts of nuisance from her neighbour’s pets for longer than was necessary. This was a failing.
In its stage 2 response to Complaint A, the landlord told the resident that it had raised the issue of dogs fouling with her neighbour. It had also checked for dog foul during regular estate inspections. It acknowledged that it could have been clearer to residents about the conditions of owning pets and the actions it could take in response to dog fouling. However, it did not explain what further action it proposed to take to resolve the issue. That the landlord failed to demonstrate it had considered all the measures available to it under its policy was service failure.

The conduct of a staff member

The landlord’s records show that the conduct of a member of staff was discussed during the residents’ meeting on 21 September 2022. The notes from the meeting do not provide details of the concerns that residents had raised. However, they do show that the landlord had agreed to investigate the staff member’s conduct as part of its stage 1 complaint investigation.
The stage 1 response to Complaint A, dated 24 November 2022, confirms that the complaint was about reports that a staff member had breached data protection by sharing residents’ information. The evidence shows that the landlord took appropriate and proportionate action to investigate this complaint. As the staff member was no longer employed by the organisation it had been unable to speak to them directly about the matter. This was beyond the landlord’s control.
However, it obtained permission to access the staff member’s email account and was able to review all the relevant correspondence they had sent. The landlord assured the resident it had not found any evidence they had shared residents’ data with any third parties and provided a reasonable explanation of why she might have perceived otherwise. It could have signposted her to the ICO if she wished to pursue her concerns about a data breach. That it had omitted to do so was a shortcoming. However, the evidence shows that overall the landlord responded appropriately to the complaint about staff conduct.

Complaint

The landlord’s complaints policy sets out a 2 stage formal complaints process. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. If it requires an extension, it will provide an explanation with a clear timeframe for when it will issue its response. Extensions beyond 20 working days at stage 1 and 30 working days at stage 2 should be agreed between both parties. This is broadly in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
The evidence shows that the landlord’s complaint handling was consistently protracted. It took it 47 working days for its to send its stage 1 response for Complaint A, and 113 working days to issue its stage 2 response. Furthermore, it took it 49 working days to send its stage 2 response for Complaint B. In the course of its investigations, there are no records to show it had sent the resident any updates or explanations for why its responses were delayed. There is no indication it had made any attempts to agree any new timescales with her, and was a significant departure from its complaints policy and the Code. This was aggravated by the landlord’s failure to manage the resident’s expectations about what it intended to take through its complaint procedure. This would likely have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident as she felt the landlord was not actioning her complaint.
The landlord failed to send any acknowledgements for the complaints the resident made on 7 and 11 November 2022. Despite her chasing it about them on 9 December 2022, the landlord still failed to provide an acknowledgement it had received those complaints. This was a further missed opportunity to demonstrate to the resident it was progressing her complaint.
The evidence shows the landlord addressed the concerns she raised on 7 and 11 November 2022 as part of its stage 2 review of Complaint A, which was originally raised as a group complaint. However, it should have first asked the resident whether she was happy for it to include the concerns she had raised on her own behalf as part of its stage 2 response. This would have given her the opportunity to decide whether she would have preferred that those issues were treated as a separate complaint, and a new stage 1 complaint was opened instead. It could have done this as part of its acknowledgement of the complaints raised in November 2022.
The failure to acknowledge the2 complaints was a further departure from its policy and would have led to the resident believing her complaints were being ignored. It also demonstrated poor customer service. The lack of response regarding the 2 complaints made in November 2022 would have caused her unnecessary confusion and distress. It is evident that the resident’s loss of confidence in the landlord’s handling of her complaints led her to seek the Ombudsman’s intervention. It is noted that the landlord only responded to Complaint B following instruction from this Service. This should not have been necessary given the landlord’s obligations under the Code.
In its complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged and apologised for its poor complaint handling. It also offered a total of £435 compensation, which is in line with its compensation policy and what the Ombudsman would order for similar failings. The compensation is broken down as follows:
1. £150 in its stage 2 response to Complaint A for the poor handling of her escalation request and delays.
2. £85 in its stage 1 response to Complaint B for its delayed response following intervention by the Ombudsman.
3. £200 in its stage 2 response to Complaint B for the time taken to respond.
For the reasons stated above, the Ombudsman will not order that the landlord pays any additional compensation. However, considering the extent and frequency of the delays and the extent to which the landlord departed from its complaints policy and the Code, the Ombudsman has made a finding of service failure. This is because, although the landlord made an offer of compensation, not all of its failings were appropriately acknowledged during the complaints procedure. It did not, for example its failure to acknowledge the 2 complaints the resident made in November 2022. We will therefore make an order for the landlord to review its training for complaint handling staff.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise and antisocial behaviour (ASB).
In accordance with paragraph 42.i. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident reports of ASB affecting other residents is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of pets causing a nuisance in communal areas.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of poor staff conduct.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. provide a written apology to the resident from a senior member of staff for the failures identified in this report.
2. pay the resident £935 compensation, which is calculated as follows:
  1. £435 compensation it had offered in its complaint responses in recognition of its poor complaint handling. If it has already paid this, it should subtract this from the overall total.
  2. £200 it offered in its stage 2 response to Complaint B for its poor communication while investigating her ASB reports.
  3. If it has already paid the abovementioned sums it should subtract those from the overall total.
  4. £200 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused as a result of its failure to consider or address noise transference, or to properly follow its ASB policy.
  5. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its inadequate handling of the resident’s reports of nuisance from her neighbour’s pets.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. carry out a review on how it deals with complaints about non-statutory noise nuisance. It should consider any amendments it makes to the relevant policies and procedures against the recommendations made in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report. The landlord must provide a report with the outcome of its review with any wider learning it has identified.
2. review its training to complaint handling staff, with emphasis on updating residents if there are delays in responding to complaints. The training should also emphasise the importance of acknowledging complaints in a timely manner, with particular focus on being fully conversant with and following the landlord’s own complaints process. It must provide the Ombudsman with details of its review within the timeframe mentioned above.

[MM1]Good assessment over these paragraphs. You’ve highlighted the departures from policy/procedure, what the LL failed to do and the impact of this.